3 ms·

> - power/solar monitoring - you would need a server which would specifically handle the metric collection and make decisions upon this. Obviously cloud is chea

> - power/solar monitoring - you would need a server which would specifically handle the metric collection and make decisions upon this. Obviously cloud is cheaper than a separate box stationed in your house. Except there is already a box stationed in your house, otherwise no data collection. Whether you might want to be able to use cloud-provided storage for reliability reasons would be a separate issue (which (a) could be completely application agnostic and (b) could just as well use your home server if you preferred that). > Dropcams are usually a separate device which does not provide server capabilities per se - so require a box. Or adding "server capabilities", whatever that is. > but I am not going to start on how much you will be overpaying for every of the devices for them to have a separate fully-functional IP stack that is easily connected to a (W)LAN (wi-fi, ethernet, bluetooth - all of that is either expensive, bulky or power-hungry). So a box/cloud is always a solution. How exactly do any of those connect to "the cloud" without a "fully-functional IP stack"?

heavenlyblue 9y ago
>> Except there is already a box stationed in your house, otherwise no data collection. Whether you might want to be able to use cloud-provided storage for reliability reasons would be a separate issue (which (a) could be completely application agnostic and (b) could just as well use your home server if you preferred that). Exactly the point I am making in my previous message. This tech is available independently from you using ipv4 or ipv6. You can still do all of this with ipv4 and the reason engineers would prefer to have the "cloud" method is because then they keep their clients on the platform and because most of their clients would not be setting their own server up anytime soon. It is a business decision and not a technical one. You're making a point from a perspective of a geeky software engineer. >> Or adding "server capabilities", whatever that is. You can still do that with IPv4. My point stands. >> How exactly do any of those connect to "the cloud" without a "fully-functional IP stack"? For example, Philips Hue uses ZigBee to connect to "the box", which provides the HTTP interface; if they used wi-fi or bluetooth - the price for their lamps would go up by about ~$10 +-$2. So while you don't have to use "the cloud", you'd still need to have a separate piece of hardware that provides the ip connectivity. How does ipv6 solve the problem here?
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
  Well, of course, it's also in part a business decision. But it's also in part a technical decision, because you cannot directly reach the home devices from outside the network, so you need a "cloud service" anyway if you want to allow the user to control their devices remotely (and you don't want to deal with the mess to set up that is port forwardings). With IPv6, your device has a global address, so the user can just use a web browser to control the device from anywhere on the planet without any need for port forwarding, that is what IPv4 with NAT prevents.

heavenlyblue 9y ago

>> Except there is already a box stationed in your house, otherwise no data collection. Whether you might want to be able to use cloud-provided storage for reliability reasons would be a separate issue (which (a) could be completely application agnostic and (b) could just as well use your home server if you preferred that). Exactly the point I am making in my previous message. This tech is available independently from you using ipv4 or ipv6. You can still do all of this with ipv4 and the reason engineers would prefer to have the "cloud" method is because then they keep their clients on the platform and because most of their clients would not be setting their own server up anytime soon. It is a business decision and not a technical one. You're making a point from a perspective of a geeky software engineer. >> Or adding "server capabilities", whatever that is. You can still do that with IPv4. My point stands. >> How exactly do any of those connect to "the cloud" without a "fully-functional IP stack"? For example, Philips Hue uses ZigBee to connect to "the box", which provides the HTTP interface; if they used wi-fi or bluetooth - the price for their lamps would go up by about ~$10 +-$2. So while you don't have to use "the cloud", you'd still need to have a separate piece of hardware that provides the ip connectivity. How does ipv6 solve the problem here?

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
Well, of course, it's also in part a business decision. But it's also in part a technical decision, because you cannot directly reach the home devices from outside the network, so you need a "cloud service" anyway if you want to allow the user to control their devices remotely (and you don't want to deal with the mess to set up that is port forwardings). With IPv6, your device has a global address, so the user can just use a web browser to control the device from anywhere on the planet without any need for port forwarding, that is what IPv4 with NAT prevents.